topology (point-set topology, point-free topology)
see also differential topology, algebraic topology, functional analysis and topological homotopy theory
Basic concepts
fiber space, space attachment
Extra stuff, structure, properties
Kolmogorov space, Hausdorff space, regular space, normal space
sequentially compact, countably compact, locally compact, sigma-compact, paracompact, countably paracompact, strongly compact
Examples
Basic statements
closed subspaces of compact Hausdorff spaces are equivalently compact subspaces
open subspaces of compact Hausdorff spaces are locally compact
compact spaces equivalently have converging subnet of every net
continuous metric space valued function on compact metric space is uniformly continuous
paracompact Hausdorff spaces equivalently admit subordinate partitions of unity
injective proper maps to locally compact spaces are equivalently the closed embeddings
locally compact and second-countable spaces are sigma-compact
Theorems
Analysis Theorems
In topology, the “shrinking lemma” (lemma below) states that on a normal topological space the patches of every locally finite cover may be replaced by smaller patches which still cover the space, but such that their topological closures are contained in the original patches.
If there is more than a countable set of elements in the original cover, then this conclusion requires excluded middle and Zorn's lemma, hence the axiom of choice.
The shrinking lemma is needed in the proof that paracompact Hausdorff spaces equivalently admit subordinate partitions of unity.
(shrinking lemma for locally finite covers)
Assuming the axiom of choice then:
Let be a topological space which is normal and let be a locally finite open cover.
Then there exists another open cover such that the topological closure of its elements is contained in the original patches:
We now prove this in increasing generality, first for binary open covers (lemma below), then for finite covers (lemma ), then for locally finite countable covers (lemma ), and finally for general locally finite covers (lemma , proof below). It is only the last statement that needs the axiom of choice.
(shrinking lemma for binary covers)
Let be a normal topological space and let an open cover by two open subsets.
Then there exists an open set whose topological closure is contained in
and such that is still an open cover of .
Since it follows (by de Morgan's law) that their complements are disjoint closed subsets. Hence by normality of there exist disjoint open subsets
By their disjointness, we have the following inclusions:
In particular, since is closed, this means that .
Hence it only remains to observe that , by definition of .
(shrinking lemma for finite covers)
Let be a normal topological space, and let be an open cover with a finite number of patches. Then there exists another open cover such that for all .
By induction using lemma .
To begin with, consider . This is a binary open cover, and hence lemma gives an open subset with such that is still an open cover, and accordingly so is
Similarly we next find an open subset with and such that
is an open cover. After such steps we are left with an open cover as required.
Beware that the induction in lemma does not give the statement for infinite countable covers. The issue is that it is not guaranteed that is a cover.
And in fact, assuming the axiom of choice, then there exists a counter-example of a countable cover on a normal spaces for which the shrinking lemma fails (a Dowker space due to Beslagic 85).
This issue is evaded if we consider locally finite covers:
(shrinking lemma for locally finite countable covers)
Let be a normal topological space and a locally finite countable cover. Then there exists open subsets for such that and such that is still a cover.
As in the proof of lemma , there exist for such that and such that for every finite number, hence every , then
Now the extra assumption that is locally finite implies that every is contained in only finitely many of the , hence that for every there exists such that
This implies that for each
hence that is indeed a cover of .
We now invoke Zorn's lemma to generalize the shrinking lemma for finitely many patches (lemma ) to arbitrary sets of patches:
of the general shrinking lemma
Let be the given locally finite cover of the normal space . Consider the set of pairs consisting of
a subset ;
an -indexed set of open subsets
with the property that
;
.
is an open cover of .
Equip the set with a partial order by setting
By definition, an element of with is an open cover of the required form.
We claim now that a maximal element of has .
For assume on the contrary that there were . Then we could apply the construction in lemma to replace that single with a smaller open subset to obtain such that and such that is still an open cover. But that would mean that , contradicting the assumption that is maximal. This proves by contradiction that a maximal element of has and hence is an open cover as required.
We are reduced now to showing that a maximal element of exists. To achieve this we invoke Zorn's lemma. Hence we have to check that every chain in , hence every totally ordered subset has an upper bound.
So let be a totally ordered subset. Consider the union of all the index sets appearing in the pairs in this subset:
Now define open subsets for picking any in with and setting
This is independent of the choice of , hence well defined, by the assumption that is totally ordered.
Moreover, for define
We claim now that thus defined is a cover of . Take an arbitrary point . If for some , we have and therefore is in . Otherwise, combining with the assumption that is locally finite, the set of indices such that is finite and . Since is a total order, it must contain an element such that . And since that is a cover and cannot belong to any with outside of , it must be that , and hence is in .
This shows that is indeed an element of . It is clear by construction that it is an upper bound for . Hence we have shown that every chain in has an upper bound, and so Zorn’s lemma implies the claim.
The above account follows
The example (a Dowker space) of a normal space with a (not locally-finite) countable cover to which the shrinking lemma does not apply is given in
Last revised on January 22, 2023 at 21:43:00. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.